Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutionalThe bottom line is that the judge proclaimed a kindergarten argument ‘It ain't fair’ - Bill Haley This decision is wrong in so many ways. First, the judge equates mix-race marriage with same-sex marriage. This evaluation is wrong on so many levels. The 14th Amendment was especially about race since it was established right after the Civil War. No talk of same-sex marriage was anywhere around the argument 150 years ago. Race and sexual orientation are just not the same. |  |
 | If you think same sex is the same as interracial, I will ask you a simple question. If you were in the locker room of people of the same sex, however of different races would you feel uncomfortable changing in front of them? Second question, If you were in the locker room of people of the different sex, would you feel uncomfortable changing in front of them? Would you allow your 13-year-old to change in a mixed race or a mixed gender locker room? Second, the Judge wrongly concludes that defining marriage between one man and one woman is born out of prejudice. IT IS NOT! They are born out of a long history of marriage as a highly valuable pillar of society. |
| Under the warped arguments of this opinion, how can the government forbid the same benefits to a single person? Some laws and policies give preferential treatment for a married couple such as adoption and other tax benefits that singles are not afforded. Moreover, a marriage of three or even 100 people or more could not be denied. If one government employee had benefits for a spouse, could that one employee marry 1000 people, thus granting them health insurance? Could an elderly man with not long to live marry his son, thus avoiding the death tax or give over a pension that only goes to a spouse? |  |
 | While these examples might seem far-fetched, as a matter of law, they are very valid concerns if as the judge points out numerous times, a marriage is: We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? And their freedom to choose to marry the person they love. They seek "simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. |
| The Judge stated that “There can be no serious doubt that in America the right to marry is a rigorously protected fundamental right.” Haley: There is widespread debate over this. While there are many articles on both sides, these few out of many show the debate is still very real. Marriage is Not a Right by Derryck Green (bio) Why Gay Marriage Is Not a Right By Carlton Austin Gay marriage is not a right By Jonathan Zhao You Don't Have a Right to Marry By Jackson |  |
 | The judge stated: Gay and lesbian couples are as capable as other couples of raising well-adjusted children. See id. at 980 ("Children raised by 30Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 135 Filed 02/13/14 Page 30 of 41 PageID# 1072 gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted"). In the field of developmental psychology, "the research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate." The debate is far from being over!A father has certain qualities that are very important as well as the mother. When God created Eve from the rib of Adam, I believe he separated Gods image into male and female, and when they join in holy matrimony, the Bible states they become one. Both the Mother and Father bring very different qualities to raising a child. |
| While the Va. Constitution is inclusive to claiming what marriage is; the state law is exclusive of on what marriage is not. I prefer the inclusive versus the exclusive definition. | Va. Constitutition: Section 15-A. Marriage. That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007 —Added a new section (15-A). |
| § 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex. A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. (1975, c. 644; 1997, cc. 354, 365.)§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex. A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable. (2004, c. 983.) | While I agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I am also for allowing individuals not married to have easily attained contracts that allow strong relationships with privileges and responsibility. This would allow gay or straight people to join together to take care of each other. This could be two elderly people who do not wish to be alone; however, romantic love and marriage is not presenting the opportunity. It is good for society that people join together to help each other out. This is true with or without romantic love. More of my position on this can be found in my Social Issues  |
 | Side note, this judge declares that “Our Constitution declares that "all men"are created equal.” That is in the declaration, not the Constitution. |
 |  |
 |  |
